John TYNDALL- Economic Nationalism or the Global Economy [transcript]
audio recording also at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTZN3_Wttrw
1) mp3 audio of the speech from the above YT link, ca. 1989;
2) Tyndall's monograph on 'Democracy'.
For a concise but correct and insightful exposition of modern economics and banking, read Hilaire Belloc's "Economics for Helen" (1924).
'Interdependence' and division between different countries and economic blocs as regards service and manufacturing roles according to type is a cornerstone of the globalist One-World paradigm.
Transcript of the Talk by John TYNDALL:
"Economic Nationalism - or the Global Economy" (ca. 1989)
In October 1987 a spate of selling took place on the Stock Exchange in New York. This created something of a panic and the price of shares began to fall everywhere, including Britain. One of the companies most badly affected was British Petroleum, which the Government had only recently put on the Stock Market as part of its Privatisation policy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was forced into a frantic rescue operation at much public expense to keep BP share prices stable. At the same time as this the fall in New York made the Pound rise rapidly on World markets against the Dollar and that threatened Britain's export trade, making our goods more expensive abroad, with the resulting danger of further unemployment in an industry geared to produce for export.
In the case of British Petroleum, nothing had happened to affect that company's producing capacity. Its oil wells and refineries were still there; its workforce had not been immobilised; the quality of its many products had not been impaired nor had the demand for those products been reduced; and yet the value of that company had slumped dramatically overnight because of share transactions on a money market across the Atlantic.
This one example served to illustrate the crazy insanity of the economic system under which we live. The savings of huge numbers of ordinary British investors and the jobs of millions of British workers are endangered by movements of money abroad which bear no relation at all to the producing capability of the British economy itself. These are the fruits of international capitalism, which makes the producer the slave of the jugglers of money and British industry the slave of international conditions, which no British Government can ever regulate or control.
At the time I speak these words, there are still nearly 3 million unemployed in Britain. This constitutes a vast drain on the nation's resources, paying people to be idle. It also causes widespread demoralisation because in many areas of this country great numbers of young people are leaving school, some of them with good qualifications and skills, without hope of work, either now or in the foreseeable future. What a waste of a nation's energy and talent this is! And all so unnecessary. We have factories standing unoccupied or only partly occupied; we have machines in those factories capable of producing goods; we have people capable of operating those machines or who can be easily trained to operate them; and we have people who could buy the goods when they are produced. All the components are there for a thriving economy without a single worker wanting for a job, and yet we are not able to put this economy into practice, because of certain ancient superstitions that rule the minds of our politicians? So instead, we have national paralysis.
What are these superstitions? First and foremost, there's the superstition of internationalism. Britain, they say, must be part of the international economy. This means that we must not be allowed to make decisions in the interests of our own industry if foreigners are opposed to them. Because of the international economy, we have Japanese and other foreign factories making the goods for our people that our own factories could make and should be making. While people buy Japanese electronic goods and motorcycles, British workers who could be employed making those things are paid for doing nothing. While people drive around in Japanese, German, French, Russian, Italian, Spanish and Swedish cars, British motor workers are on the dole. While British cargoes are carried across the oceans by Japanese, Korean, German and Finnish ships, the Clyde, the Tyne, the Wear and other traditional shipbuilding areas are sunk deep in slump, their people in idleness
Of course we can anticipate the response of the Tory politician to this picture. It's a response that comes out with the predictability of a well-trained parrot. These foreigners have captured our market because they've been more efficient than our own workers; they produce better goods, at better prices, and deliver them on time. Because of this they deserve to put our own workers out of their jobs. It's all part of the game of international competition: if our own industries improve their performance they'll capture these markets back and employment will then increase again. It's all up to the British worker himself.
There are many flaws in this argument, and I'm going to examine them.
In the first place, it's perfectly true that many British firms have lost business to foreigners by bad performance, poor management, low productivity, inefficiency, restrictive practices and so on. But it isn't anything like the whole of the story. In a lot of cases the prices of foreign products have been artificially brought down by way of subsidies from government in the countries where they're produced. These subsidies have been introduced as part of a trade war. The idea is that low prices will enable these firms to knock their competitors out of international markets. Then when those competitors have been knocked out, the prices are raised and the subsidies withdrawn, because they're no longer necessary. British shipbuilding, just to name one example, has been a tragic victim of this practice.
Then, apart from subsidies, there's the fact that many foreign producers operate on a low wage system with which British firms cannot possibly compete unless they depress their own workers' wages to a similar level. A level in fact that would see a totally unacceptable reduction of these workers' standards of life. International big business is getting wise to this and setting up factories in Third World countries where the workers are paid what would be regarded as starvation wages in Britain, yet probably higher wages than most other people are paid in those same countries. To say that British workers must compete with workers like these by offering their goods on the markets of the World and in the market at home at comparable prices is to ask them to do the impossible, unless we're prepared to live at Third World levels on a bowl of rice a day and in houses which we wouldn't ask our own dogs to live in.
But that's only as small part of the story. Of course prices can be brought down drastically, when industry is producing in vast quantities. Other things being equal, an automobile plant that's turning out a hundred thousand cars a year should be able to produce more cars per worker than a plant that's producing fifty thousand cars a year. This means that the factory with the bigger production should be able to sell its cars more cheaply. It doesn't mean that the workers in that factory are necessarily working more hard or efficiently than the workers in the other factory. It means only that the factory with the bigger output is achieving greater economies of scale. This was what enabled Ford's of America to be the first mass-production motor manufacturer. Ford's paid their workers higher wages than most, yet their cars sold more cheaply than most. The secret lay in the sheer number of cars they were producing.
That was possible in America in the 1920s and 1930s because a great many Americans were available who could buy motor cars and very few of them bought foreign motor cars. Today, exactly the same rule is being applied in Japan. There are plenty of Japanese buying motor cars, and almost none of them wants to buy or is able to buy a motor car made anywhere else. Japanese factories can operate at enormous units of production. This immediately gives Japan a great price advantage in the markets of the World. Conservative economists are often comparing British industrial workers' performance unfavourably with the performance of Japanese industrial workers and saying that all we have to do to restore a higher rate of employment in this country is for our workers to improve and perform as well as the Japs. That, the Tories say, is the answer to unemployment:
pass the buck onto the workers and absolve Government from the blame.
But wait a minute: how did Japanese industry in the first place get into this favourable position? And how does it maintain that favourable position now?
It did so by the simple process of protection: the very policy that's so abhorrent to all the disciples of Mrs Thatcher. It wasn't official protection of course. Theoretically, any foreign manufacturer could export their goods to Japan without barriers; but in practice all sorts of devices were employed to make it exceedingly difficult for them to do so. There were trade regulations, there were safety regulations, there were bureaucratic delays in getting licences to sell their products in Japan. What has become clear to all the World's major manufacturers and exporters outside Japan is that the Japs have not wanted them to sell anything more than just a token number of their products in the Japanese market, and have used every kind of subterfuge and every kind of trick to prevent them doing so.
In addition to this, there's the fact that the average Japanese consumer is much more nationalistic than ours is. He has a bias in favour of the products of his own country and wants to help his own industries to keep going. The whole climate of public opinion in Japan has been maintained in such a way as to induce him to do this. He is told it's his patriotic duty.
By contrast the British consumer is encouraged to think that it's chic and fashionable to buy foreign products and he does so all too often.
In this way the gigantic strength of Japanese industry has been built up by a buy-Japanese policy, by nationalism.
Industry in Japan has started off with an assured market -- the home market -- where it has virtually no competition. Straight away it's had an enormous advantage over its rivals. With the aid of this enormous home market Japanese industry has been able to achieve the great economies of scale and naturally has been in a favoured position, then, to sell its products on the markets of the World at competitive prices. At the same time this has given Japanese industry enormous resources which other countries' industries have not had. That has made possible investment in the most modern methods of production and a great amount of research into the possibilities of even more modern methods of production for the future. Also the training that has raised the standards of competence of Japanese workers at every level.
In fact low Japanese prices in World markets have often been maintained only by the operation of much higher prices in the Japanese home market. This was how the Japanese television manufacturing industry was built up. Jap TV sets sold abroad at prices which made only the minimum profit; sometimes no profit at all -- even a loss -- the balance was made up by the big profit made by sets sold in Japan -- sold in Japan because no foreign television manufacturer was allowed to compete in the Jap market and undercut the local makers.
In this way the Japs ruined the TV manufacturing industries of their rivals around the World: in America, in Britain and elsewhere, they came to dominate the World market. Then of course they could raise their prices as they did and still have the confidence that no-one else could match them. Now the sheer scale of their manufacture and sales maintain them in competitiveness; a competitiveness that can only be broken if their foreign rivals adopted the same protective policies as they had.
But of course we've not done this: we don't have the Japs' nationalistic approach. The very word 'protection' is standard heresy in this country so we suffer Japanese dominance and the dominance of others who use these and other methods to undercut our own industries; methods that have nothing to do with fair competition. Yet our politicians continue to tell us that we must succeed in fair competition if we're to rebuild our industries and restore full employment. It's like telling a boxer that he must win by fighting within the Queensberry Rules when his opponent is free to use whatever rules he likes.
None of this is to ignore the high performance of the Japanese worker.
His industriousness, his diligence, his discipline, his teamwork, his co-operation with management, his pride in his company and in his job: in all these things British workers must improve if we're to regenerate industry in this country. But how are we to bring about this improvement in practice? The theory of free-trading Tory Capitalism is that the necessary improvement will occur under the pressure and stimulus of competition -- the foreign competition that they've allowed to ruin our own industries. But the fact is that this has not happened: the elixir that the Tory witchdoctors prescribe to get us on our feet has not worked. Certainly there's been some improvement in the cost-effectiveness and competitiveness of some industries -- for example the motor industry and the steel industry -- but this has been the result of factors which have very little to do with the stimulus of competition from foreigners. In both industries the workforce was cut by massive redundancies. Naturally, with a far smaller wage bill it was possible for both these industries and others like them to be more viable than in the past.
What Tories fail to mention is the hidden bill: the huge bill that the nation has to pay to keep these redundant workers in idleness.
It's certainly true that many British industries have been over-manned, using far more workers to produce the same volume of goods than their foreign rivals. Obviously this situation had to be remedied, but the manner of the remedy applied under Thatcherism has in no way benefited this country as a whole, and it's left millions of people bitter about its consequences, leading to tragic national divisions.
There are two ways in which you can approach the situation of over-manning in industry. One way is to cut the number of workers employed and to pay fewer workers to produce the same volume of goods. That is the way that has been chosen by the Tory Government. The other way is to keep the same number of workers employed producing a far higher volume of goods.
Only one course lies open if we're to achieve this: we must obviously expand the market and the only sure way of doing this is at home. By the exclusion of imports, and the expansion of home production to fill the gap. In this way the cost-effectiveness of British industry could have been enormously increased, but without the massive redundancies that have taken place, without the huge bill that we have today for maintaining the unemployed.
Of course even here the expansion of the market to absorb a higher rate of production is not always possible: there may be limits to the market that can be created, even with full protection against imports, and within those limits we cannot sell the produce of the industry in question when it's working at the maximum level of which it's capable.
Sometimes a market inevitably contracts as the march of time and technology creates a reduced demand for certain products: ship-building is an example. Even if all the ships that Britain needed were built in British yards, this could not keep the same number of shipyard workers employed that were employed fifty years ago. Air travel and air transport have simply created a World that needs less ships. Some shipyard workers were bound to be laid off.
In other cases, the introduction of automated factories will inevitably result in layoffs of manpower too; and again, even with full protection against imports, we cannot avoid this; some workers will have to become redundant. But here the answer is to have alternative industries, new industries located in those areas where workers are being laid off from the old industries. Here planning is necessary; free market *laissez-faire* economics just will not be enough. The industries must be situated where they're needed to absorb the redundant labour of the old industries, not where the free market drives them in accordance with the pure rules of profit.
The Tory assumption is always that what is most profitable for the sum total of manufacturing and trading companies will be *ipso facto* most profitable for the nation; but again the hidden bill is overlooked; the nation has to support those millions thrown out of work. When some industries decline or become mechanised and other industries don't arise in the same
areas to absorb their labour, the private company does not have to support those redundant workers except sometimes by token redundancy payments. This is a consideration that the free market school of thinking always ignores.
As the nation and the World have become reduced in their demand for ships, so have they grown in their demand for aircraft. The common sense thing to do would have been to build aircraft factories to replace the waning shipyards or factories to make computers, motor cars, motorcycles, cameras, printing equipment, office equipment, video recorders or any other of the vast range of products for which the market has been increasing in modern times. Yet we don't do this. We fly the air routes of the World in mostly American planes; we ride Japanese motorcycles; we take photographs with German or Japanese, even Russian, cameras; we have our books and newspapers produced by German or American printing equipment. Of course we are not this way going to meet the challenge posed by the decline of old industries except by throwing more and more of our workforce onto the scrapheap.
Here is where we come back to the problem of improving the performance of the British worker so as to bring it up to the level of the Japanese worker. Now this requires a number of things: I've mentioned training, which involves spending money, something which as I've said the great Japanese companies can find from out of their huge profits, earned with the help of a protected home market. We also need the teamwork of the Japanese, which I've also mentioned.
Here we have to achieve much better industrial relations and that requires mutual trust between the boardroom and the shop floor and also between both these institutions and Government, with all three entities working to the same purpose. When the Japanese worker is told that he must move to a new industry or another department of the same industry because his services are no longer required at his customary place of work due to the obsolescence of the product or his replacement by robots, he can be persuaded that this change is one of necessity, brought on by the march of time. He knows that both his managers and government would do everything to maintain his old job if they could. He is therefore more disposed to co-operate in the process. At the same time his job is, on average, much more secure because he knows that he's not going to be thrown out of it by an invasion of British, American or other foreign imported products undercutting him in price. For these reasons, causes of industrial conflict are far less in Japan than in our own country and industrial relations are therefore far more smooth.
But when the British worker is asked to accept a redundancy, for instance in steel, because of a reduced demand for his product, he can see that all over Britain we're using the steel products of other nations which he might otherwise be employed to supply; the sure recipe is created for industrial strife. It has occurred in the steel industry for precisely these reasons and also in coal.
An absolutely vital policy for the raising of the standards of workmanship and productivity in British industry is that we establish the right relationship between all the parts of industry. If we get rid of the 'Us and Them' mentality that prevails so much now -- of course I'm saying nothing new here -- every proprietor will say, every sensible trade unionist will say, 'But how do we do it?' We can only do it when Government, management and labour are united in one common interest, working for Britain.
This brings us back to the City. The British worker is deeply suspicious of the City and with good reason. This suspicion is something that left-wing politicians and trade unionists are then able to exploit in their own divisive and sectional interests, equally divisive and sectional as the interests of international big business which represents the opposite end of the spectrum. The City is the place where we find located most of the great financial institutions that run the British economy. Now of course the economy needs such financial institutions just as
a car needs petrol. Of course the economy needs financial expertise; the expertise that knows which firms are worthy of investment and which not. And for that financial expertise, there must be an apt reward; we don't expect the nation's best financial and investment brains to work for nothing. Nor do we expect capital to be invested without the prospect of profit; and this is what makes so ridiculous the supposition of the Left of politics that the City is not needed, that we just knock it down. But if the City's existence is to be justified, it must work for Britain; there is no other rationale for it. No matter what the importance of finance to the economy, in the end we must recognise that it is the productive sector of the economy that determines whether we have a prosperous nation or not. Finance is useful, or useless, entirely according to the way in which it helps or hinders the productive sector. When the purpose of finance becomes the highest profit for the dealers in finance, as an end in itself quite separated from the interests of the producer and of the nation, then finance becomes a parasite, and the City as the centre of finance in Britain becomes a place that hinders rather than helps national prosperity.
This is what the City has become today and for two reasons: firstly the City is pre-eminently international; its loyalties are to the World business community and without ties to any nation; it's free to take itself wherever in the World it chooses, wherever the quickest buck is to be made, even if that means financing foreign industry to compete with British industry and drive great numbers of British workers out of their jobs. Secondly, the City is above Government; at least it's above Government in practice, if not in theory or in law. Successive Governments in this country of whatever party complexion have always been prepared to be subservient to the City rather than make the City subservient to them.
The political system we live under makes this almost inevitable. In the never-ending warfare of the politicians and the parties, the City can always buy off one politician or party against another. Usually the City supports the Conservatives, though it can always support the other parties if the Conservatives got out of line. The City provides a large part of the funds that the Tory Party needs to keep in business. The city provides the sleeping directorships and the consultant's fees that can be used to seduce the aspiring politician into serving its interests. Every politician knows that he can further his career, get a better Press, and improve his financial prospects by making friends in the City, which every politician of success and consequence does. Can it be wondered that the politicians will never grip hold of the City and make it work for Britain? On the contrary, it is the City which grips hold of the politicians, and makes them work for it.
If we are to have real economic recovery in this country, the City must become a national rather than an international institution. Its resources and its expertise must be mobilised so that they work entirely for Britain and this can only be done if we have a type of Government with the power and the will to control and direct finance as it must control and direct all other vital resources of the nation. Then the first purpose of financial policy must be to ensure that investment in the City is directed into British industry and other productive sectors of the British economy, not abroad to finance Britain's competitors. Of course there will be cases where investment overseas in certain selected enterprises can be of benefit to Britain, but this matter must be decided in accordance with the national interest and not just with considerations of profit. Here then the Government must have the deciding say; but we can take it as a general rule that the overwhelming bulk of British financial resources must be directed to the building up of industry at home; and where new legislation is needed to give Government the power to do this, then that legislation must be accepted. The second vital role
of finance in Britain must be to provide the fuel to enable industry to work to the full capacity of which it's physically capable. That means feeding money into the economy in exact proportion to the capability of industry: no more, no less. The money must be made available to enable industry to operate at full stretch and the money must be made available to enable the consumer to buy the produce of industry operating at full stretch.
This is a common sense equation that a child should be able to understand, yet our system doesn't permit it in practice. There is no relationship whatever between the capability of industry to provide, and the available finance to invest in it and enable the people to buy what it produces. Why so? Because Government has long ago surrendered its proper prerogative of controlling the financial forces of the nation. Today that prerogative lies with the great banks which create money by the mere action of lending it.
The banks lend money into circulation by nothing more than a piece of accountancy: they don't need to have, as you or I would need to have, the monetary resources of their own to cover the loan; they merely make an entry into their record, noting that the borrower is authorised to issue cheques on their account up to a certain stipulated sum; and then they sit back and grow fat on the repayment -- with interest -- of this 'borrowed' money. If you or I did this, we'd be prosecuted and put in jail for passing dud cheques. But when the big banks do it, it's the height of financial wisdom and orthodoxy.
Obviously, when money is created in this way it's not going to serve the needs of production or consumption; it's only going to serve the needs of the banker. And not only this, but industry and the consumer are going to be saddled with a mountain of debt growing greater every year. I say industry and the consumer, but I should not exclude Government, because Government under the system we have is the biggest debtor of all. When the Government wants money, it borrows it from the big banks on just the terms that I've stated, and then the long-suffering taxpayer is burdened into eternity with the bill for paying the interest on that borrowed money which, as long as the system lasts, can never be repaid.
If there's going to be economic recovery the system has got to be changed. The banks, big and small, must be put on the same basis as any other business and any other individual; they must not be allowed to lend money that they've not earned by legitimate trading. They must not be allowed to create money out of nothing and then earn interest on that creation: interest paid back to them in real money.
Of course this means that an alternative mechanism must be found for feeding new money into the economy. The new money that's needed to fuel economic growth; to enable production to expand; and the consumer to buy the fruits of this expanded production.
The only such mechanism that makes sense and is at the same time right and just is one operated by Government. The Government must itself create all the nation's new money. It must do this at a rate that's adjusted carefully and regularly to the nation's real economic growth. Enough money to keep industry working at full throttle but not any more money than that, or there'll be inflation.
Government can do this by issuing the money debt-free and spending it into the economy as part of normal public expenditure. Of course the defenders of the old economic orthodoxy will object to this by saying that if the banks are not allowed to issue money as credit far in excess of the actual funds in their possession, the economy will be short of credit; how in that case would industry get the loans it needs to expand, how would the Government raise money except by higher taxation? I've already answered the second question by saying that Government would raise money for public expenditure simply by issuing it debt-free in accordance with the rate of national growth. If more is needed it must come from taxation but there will be a big difference:
gradually by this method we'll eliminate Government debt and with it, the obligation to pay interest on that debt. Today a huge part of the taxpayer's burden consists of the obligation to fund Government debts. As those debts increase, so will that burden. Eventually the debts will be eliminated and with them, the burden of interest too. The relief to the taxpayer will be enormous.
This brings us to the answer to the other part of the question that was asked: how would industry raise the money to expand? The answer is: that it'll be able to expand by means of the enormous profits that will become possible when its tax burden has reduced in the way that I've described. Industry and the private consumer will only have to pay a fraction of the tax they pay now. This will leave vast funds available for spending, for saving, for investment, so that the need to borrow money will only be a fraction of what it is now.
We must understand that the whole economic system as it now operates is geared to serve the moneylender and not even the honest moneylender but the moneylender who profits out of money that is not his to lend in the first place. Constantly the moneylender is sucking tribute from out of the economy for which industry, the consumer and the Government have to pay. We must deny this tribute to what is, essentially, a parasitical element in the economy of the nation.
I began this talk by giving an example of how the health and stability of a leading British company can be undermined by money movements on a foreign stock exchange, even if the basic resources and worth of that company remain exactly the same. We must change the whole system of finance so as to eliminate these abuses. I believe that increasingly the changes that I've mentioned earlier, and which will release vast funds possessed by companies for their own expansion, will very largely reduce the need for the public company as such. But if such a need does remain, we must legislate where necessary to ensure that the disposal of the shares of such companies by the speculative buying and selling will be prevented and that in this way we will eliminate the financial juggler and gambler from our economic life.
But the first need, before all this can be done, is to abandon the creed of internationalism. The idea that the health of the British economy must always be regulated by World conditions and that British Government may not take the measures to regulate British economic life properly, for fear of offending foreign governments and foreign economic interests. Of course there has to be international trade and of course Britain needs to take part in international trade, but only to the extent that we need to buy abroad goods that we cannot produce ourselves, and in exchange for goods of which we have a surplus. Much if not all of this exchange can be done by barter arrangements with the countries concerned, cutting out the moneylender and reducing the impact upon our economy of the current international value of the Pound.
I've always advocated that this necessary trade can best be conducted with the countries of the White Commonwealth, which, apart from having historical and racial ties with us, are able to produce most of the goods which we cannot produce in Britain. But there is no need whatever for Britain to import huge quantities of manufactured goods. Indeed any manufactured goods at all, except those few which may have some curiosity or gift value. We should have the skills here in these islands to manufacture every vital man-made commodity that we need. By doing so, we can restore work to every one of the near 3 millions of our countrymen and women now out of work and we can at the same time be masters of our own economic destiny.
All this needs a revolution in our economic thinking and in our political thinking.
I've stressed here the weaknesses of the old capitalism, the philosophy to which the Tory Party is committed hook, line and sinker. But equally inadequate is the old Socialism. The Labour Party have regularly
made noises against the City and the parasite world of global finance to which it's tied, but Labour when in office have never done anything effectively to free us from that system. Meanwhile, Labour, like the Tories, is tied to internationalism. Indeed, faith in the ideal of a One-World community with no national or racial divisions is almost a religion in the ranks of the Left. To the Labour politician, the welfare of Black workers in Swaziland or Timbuktu is as important as the welfare of fishermen in Hull or miners in the Rhonda Valley. The same internationalist convictions are shared by the other Parties at Westminster.
The need of Britain in the modern World is nationalism, combined with a new mechanism of government that will give those elected to lead the nation the proper institutions and powers to govern effectively, controlling and co-ordinating all the forces that determine our economic well-being in one mighty effort of national reconstruction, uniting the whole nation above sectional interests, above class, in this endeavour. The precise details of such a mechanism of government are something that belong to another talk; what we must accept here in basic terms is the need for a form of government that will have the power to get things done; to plan national development for the long term as well as the short term; to regulate and to lead all our great national economic institutions and to have behind it the support of a united nation, bound together as our nation was in the darkest days of World War in common pursuit of national victory.
We will not achieve these things tomorrow. Our sense of reality tells us that as things now stand all the truly powerful institutions in this country are mobilised to resist such a change. The Right is mobilised because it threatens the interests of the City and the worldwide network of High Finance. The Left is mobilised because it offends against the sacred cow of international brotherhood by its watchword of Britain First! The trade unions will be mobilised because their leaders cannot conceive of such a thing as a national community in which management, shop floor and Government work together for one purpose and in one interest. The Press and broadcasting will be mobilised because they're only the mouthpieces of Money Power on the one hand and Socialist ideology on the other; two entities that may seem different, but always find the way to coalesce when mutually threatened. To defeat these powerful forces will take time, as it took time for every great idea that belonged to the future to overcome the resistance of the contemporary world, which always stood to lose by revolutionary change. But we have working inexorably for us the fact that the old system is in the throes of collapse. Every day sees a fresh symptom of that collapse coming nearer, whether the final collapse comes next year or the year after we cannot say, but come it will.
Up and down our land can be found betrayed millions who are that system's legacy. Destiny is gradually bringing into alliance those betrayed millions and our revolutionary movement. When that alliance is finally cemented, and we join ranks in one single great column of march, no power on Earth will prevent us becoming the inheritors of the great working and creative traditions of the British people and building a new country and a civilisation as fine as any the World has ever known.